Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proposals 5668-5672 voting periods extended
Goethe wrote: On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: 5672 O1 1.0 SgeoGet it off of me! AGAINST I vote 4 more votes AGAINST 5672. Ineffective, your caste is Epsilon. I issue: Sell ticket 1: Retract all my votes on 5672. 1VP. Sell ticket 2: Vote 5xFOR 5672. 1VP. The second ticket is effective, but of limited value to the filler (you can vote 5xFOR, but four of them would be ineffective as well).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2108 assigned to woggle
woggle wrote: I suppose I can just wait for CFJ 2100 to be judged, but as its resolution will be highly relevant to the equity here, I hereby consent to transfer this case to H. Judge Murphy (if e'll take it). I can't, I'm a party to the Vote Market.
DIS: My cantus cygneus
test
DIS: Re: BUS: Catching up - Judgement of CFJ 2101
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I support this. The equity case process, when coupled with appeals, means that any party has an opportunity to review an agreement amendment imposed by equity, thus not conflicting with R101(v). (Note that R101v is written so that you don't have to agree to the amendment, just have to have a chance to review it. For example, an amendment that you vote against in a majority voting process, or is imposed through equity, is still binding to those who vote against it as long as the process gave voters adequate time for review). R101(iv) refers to becoming party to the initial agreement, not the equity result; agreeing to become party to the initial agreement as binding under these Rules means explicitly agreeing to a process in the Rules for enforcing the binding, and that is currently the equity process. Otherwise the term binding has no meaning. The first half of this argument is irrelevant: I only referenced Rule 101 (v) to the effect that it, by mentioning amendments, is in contrast with Rule 101 (iv), which does not. In fact, I agree that equations do not violate Rule 101 (v). Furthermore, I agree that Rule 101 (iv) refers only to becoming party to new agreements. But even if you could somehow argue that I agree to a contract constitutes EXPLICIT agreement to some judicial process based on a Rule that (depending on when I agree to the contract) hasn't even been enacted yet, I NEVERTHELESS have the right (by the first sentence) to refuse to become party to ANY new binding agreement. Even if I have implicitly or even explicitly consented in the past, there is nothing in Rule 101 which says that I cannot change my mind, especially because no binding agreement... may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's defined rights. The fact that I've previously agreed to an agreement cannot infringe my right not to agree to a new one. There is absolutely no language in the Rules, game custom, or precedent to the effect that this right can and is signed away with such simple actions as agreeing to contracts. And it is clear that an equity result is a new agreement, not an amendment to the existing one. If the text to that effect and strong implication by Rule 2169 (In this role [equations are] subject to modification or termination by the usual processes governing binding agreements.) is not sufficient to prove this, consider an equity case initiated by a non-party to a pledge. In this case, the equation has a _different set of parties_ than the original contract. As I said, it would be very easy and I think has been proposed to make equations amendments and therefore more effective (although the pledge thing would have to be fixed). I'll be voting against it, though. I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgment in CFJ 2101. It's reasonable to think that 101(viii), 101(iv), and game custom in nomic, not just in Agora but going back to Suber's publication of The Paradox of Self Amendment, combine to create an implied ability to completely cease to be a participant in Agora by announcement, releasing a person of all obligations under Agoran rule and contracts given authority under that rule. This ability would mean that a person's right to not be bound by an agreement is not violated by Equity judgments binding em as long as e chooses to participate in Agora either as a player or in the general sense. Any precedent to the contrary should be ignored as it doesn't take into account the history of nomic, the best interests of the game, and common sense which says that game-imposed obligations cannot, in general, be applied to non-participants by the definition of what it means to play a game. I find it even harder to see any value in this argument. If this is set as precedent, R101 (iv), (v), (vi), and (vii) are all completely worthless because the right of persons not to become party to binding agreements, be considered bound by agreements which they have not had the reasonable opportunity to review, participate in the fora, and not be penalized more than once for a single action or inaction can all be satisfied by deregistration. I submit all of the above as gratutious arguments.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2107a assigned to BobTHJ, Murphy, comex
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with the support of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this case, if only to let Judge Wooble pick a better punishment. BobTHJ: ping.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2132 assigned to Sgeo
tusho wrote: 2008/8/10 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2132 == CFJ 2132 == I am sitting. I retract this CFJ. Uhh, can I do that by now? No, R2175 only lets you do it if no judge has been assigned. Anyway trivially TRUE now. But all the judgements in R591 base their appropriateness of the statement's truth at the time the case was initiated.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 2100
Sgeo wrote: This case was initiated by Wooble on July 20, at which point Sgeo was indeed in violation of the ASAP requirement. Sgeo could have scammed the contract by e.g. transferring all but 1 of eir VP to a confederate, then transferring 1 VP to Ivan Hope, but e did not bother to do so. Wrong. The pledge stated that I would give back at least what e gave me. Here is the text of the pledge as recorded: I pledge to, upon a player giving me eir entire supply of a currency, give said player all of my supply of that currency, including what that player gave me, as soon as possible.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Catching up - Judgement of CFJ 2101
comex wrote: As I said, it would be very easy and I think has been proposed to make equations amendments and therefore more effective (although the pledge thing would have to be fixed). I'll be voting against it, though. This approach had some problems pointed out: * Original contract may have terminated between the times of initiation and equation, in which case a new contract is needed after all * Setting aside an equation on appeal would require undoing the amendment, which would be messy if the contract is otherwise amended between the times of equation and setting aside I still believe that agreeing that a contract will be binding under the rules of Agora constitutes sufficiently explicit agreement to an equation handed down by the rules of Agora for the purpose of enforcing the spirit of that contract. (I tried to legislate this stance, but it was shot down; I need to go back and split that proposal up into smaller pieces.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Evil foodstuffs, minus foods
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 21:43, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following:
{This is a public contract known as The Normish Partnership. Any
entity CAN cause TNP to act by causing Normish (a.k.a. rootnomic,
which, as of August 9, 2008, was a server located at 209.20.80.194 and
will, prima facie, continue to be that server) to send an email
message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to an Agoran public forum after
September 9, 2008.
The parties to this contract SHALL ensure that TNP obeys the rules of
Agora completely. The parties to this contract CAN act on its behalf
to fulfill one of its obligations. This contract can be amended with
the consent of all parties.}
I pledge to transfer 30 VP to The Normish Partnership by September 9,
2008, assuming it exists at that time.
By the way, I believe the PerlNomic Partnership allows its parties to
act on its behalf to take advantage of its rights. It has the right to
deregister. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
It uses this old boilerplate:
3. The PerlNomic Partnership may incur obligations, rights, and
privileges under the Rules of Agora. The Partners may act on
behalf of the PerlNomic Partnership to satisfy such obligations
and to exercise such rights and privileges, as permitted by
this agreement.
I suspect the as permitted by this agreement and the use of may
rather than can mean that clause 3 does not actually provide a means
to perform an action. And clause 4 purports the restrict the means by
which the PNP can act and is probably effective in doing so:
4. The PerlNomic Partnership shall act by using the mechanisms of the
PerlNomic game to send messages to the appropriate Agoran fora. This
is the only mechanism by which the PerlNomic Partnership may act.
[Now, it's kind-of sloppy that this doesn't use can, but I think
it's clear enough...]
- woggle
DIS: Way to get back some VP?
This is NOT a pledge, an agreement, a promise, or anything else. I'm thinking maybe SELL ticket 10VP, with which, for 1 week, the filler can act on my behalf except for the actions of transfering VP or judging a certain way on CFJs or deregistration
Re: DIS: Way to get back some VP?
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 22:10, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is NOT a pledge, an agreement, a promise, or anything else. I'm thinking maybe SELL ticket 10VP, with which, for 1 week, the filler can act on my behalf except for the actions of transfering VP or judging a certain way on CFJs or deregistration You're probably better off specifying the interesting actions you'd actually want to auction off explicitly. Because I think you do not, for example, want me acting on your behalf to bind you to transfer N VP to me. (I can be clever here, too.. For example, submitting buy tickets or AUCTION-sell ticket bids on your behalf. No actual transfer of VP within the week.) If you do want to go open-ended, however, you probably should have some clause about the effects of the actions taken on your behalf (rather than about what they actually are) to avoid these sorts of scams - woggle
